Codebase intelligence for AI and humans: code health scores, auto-generated docs, git analytics, dead code detection, and architectural decisions via MCP.
C-Rank Grade: S (Elite) - 74/100
External PR Merge Rate: 80%
Response Time: -
First Timer Success: 55%
repowise-dev/repowise has a recorded first-timer success rate of 55.0%. Repositories ranked S typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.
Maintainers in repowise-dev/repowise respond to incoming external pull requests in approximately 0.0 hours on average. Keeping PRs focused on single tasks and ensuring tests pass helps maintainers review faster.
The C-Rank™ system evaluates GitHub projects on a 0–100 scale using real data: PR merge rates, review turnaround time, active maintainer presence, and first-time contributor success. A score of 74.0 places repowise-dev/repowise in the S tier.
The external contributor pull request merge rate for repowise-dev/repowise is 80.3%, based on public PR activity from non-core contributors.
repowise-dev/repowise currently has 101 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels like "good first issue", "beginner", or "up-for-grabs".
Collaborative maintainer environment in repowise-dev/repowise. Reviews community pull requests with focus on project quality.
Average Response Latency
Tracks hours until a maintainer leaves a review, comment, or PR response.
External Acceptance Rate
Percentage of community pull requests successfully merged into main.
First PR Conversion
Rate at which developers submitting their first repository PR succeed.
Show contributors that your repository actively reviews and merges external pull requests.
[](https://getmerged.abhishekco.de/repowise-dev/repowise?utm_source=github&utm_medium=badge)
Historical health & responsiveness evolution
External PR acceptance
First PR success rate
50% receive response in
90% receive response in
Maintainer review activity heatmap & prime window prediction
Calculating local time...
Calculating local time...
Detected: UTC
Maintainers are most responsive around 09:00 UTC (09:00 UTC in your timezone). Recommended submission window is Wednesday - Friday from 06:00 to 10:00 UTC (06:00 - 10:00 UTC local).
Maintainer Strategy: Maintainer Sweet Spot: PRs under 150 lines merge in ~16 hours (96% approval). Large PRs (>500 lines) take ~115 hours (36% approval). Keep your diff compact for rapid review.
Summary The bug-fix commit rule only matches the bare word fix, so subjects that say Fixed, Fixes, Fixing, hotfix or bugfix are not counted as fixes. On Django, whose every ticket commit reads Fixed #NNNNN -- ..., the product counts 5 of 1,568 commits since 2025 as fixes, so its bug-fix history is close to empty. packages/core/src/repowise/core/ingestion/git_indexer/_constants.py:161 _FIX_COMMIT_INCLUDE: tuple[re.Pattern[str], ...] = ( re.compile(r"\bfix\b", re.IGNORECASE), re.compile(r"\bbug\b", re.IGNORECASE), re.compile(r"\bpatch\b", re.IGNORECASE), re.compile(r"\bresolves?\b", re.IGNORECASE), re.compile(r"closes?\s+#\d+", re.IGNORECASE), re.compile(r"fixes?\s+#\d+", re.IGNORECASE), ) Mechanism \bfix\b needs a word boundary after fix, so Fixed, Fixes and Fixing never match. fixes?\s+#\d+ covers Fixes #12 only; Fixed #12 has neither form. hotfix and bugfix have no boundary before fix. is_fix_commit (_constants.py:188) is the one fix definition on every surfac
Summary The complexity walk recurses once per AST level, so a function with a deeply nested expression (a loop header made of ~500 chained calls, as in generated builder code) raises RecursionError. The file then gets no complexity metrics at all. packages/core/src/repowise/core/analysis/health/complexity/cyclomatic.py:477 for child in node.children: _recurse(child, new_depth, child_markup, scope) Mechanism _walk_function_body (cyclomatic.py:320) walks the body with the nested _recurse (:365), one Python frame per tree-sitter node level. A chain x.f().f()... is a left-nested tree, so N calls is about 2N levels deep and crosses the default limit of 1000 frames. walk_file calls it with no guard (walker.py:193). The engine catches the error in _walk_or_empty (analysis/health/engine.py:1074) and returns an empty FileComplexity, logging only health_walk_failed at debug level. Indexing survives, but every function in that file silently drops out of health, Fix first and
Summary Every Pascal loop that holds a performance finding reads loop_magnitude: unknown and loop_iterates: unknown, whatever it walks. A while not Q.Eof over a FireDAC query and a for I := 1 to N with N := 3 get the same answer, because the Pascal dialect never implements the shared loop-source reader that #3489 added. Checked on main at 4756386. packages/core/src/repowise/core/analysis/health/perf/dialects/pascal.py:129 class PascalPerfDialect(BasePerfDialect): Go, Java, C#, Ruby, Python and TypeScript derive from the reader instead, for example perf/dialects/go.py:165: class GoPerfDialect(IterableSources): Mechanism The perf walk asks a dialect what a loop walks only when the dialect overrides loop_source (analysis/health/complexity/perf_walk.py:539), caches one answer per loop (:554-558), and combines the enclosing loops with combined_magnitude (:575, perf/loop_facts.py:105). BasePerfDialect.loop_source returns None (perf/dialects/base.py:382), so a Pascal loop is always LoopSourc
Summary Every Dart loop that holds a performance finding reads loop_magnitude: unknown and loop_iterates: unknown, whatever it walks. A for over the rows of db.rawQuery('SELECT ...') and a for over ['a', 'b'] bound to a local get the same answer, because the Dart dialect never implements the shared loop-source reader that #3489 added. Checked on main at 4756386. packages/core/src/repowise/core/analysis/health/perf/dialects/dart.py:74 class DartPerfDialect(BasePerfDialect): Go, Java, C#, Ruby, Python and TypeScript derive from the reader instead, for example perf/dialects/go.py:165: class GoPerfDialect(IterableSources): Mechanism The perf walk asks a dialect what a loop walks only when the dialect overrides loop_source (analysis/health/complexity/perf_walk.py:539), caches one answer per loop (:554-558), and combines the enclosing loops with combined_magnitude (:575, perf/loop_facts.py:105). BasePerfDialect.loop_source returns None (perf/dialects/base.py:382), so a Dart loop is always L
Summary Every Scala loop that holds a performance finding reads loop_magnitude: unknown and loop_iterates: unknown, whatever it walks. A while (rs.next()) over a JDBC query and a for over a two-entry List("a", "b") get the same answer, because the Scala dialect never implements the shared loop-source reader that #3489 added. Checked on main at 4756386. packages/core/src/repowise/core/analysis/health/perf/dialects/scala.py:90 class ScalaPerfDialect(BasePerfDialect): Go, Java, C#, Ruby, Python and TypeScript derive from the reader instead, for example perf/dialects/go.py:165: class GoPerfDialect(IterableSources): Mechanism The perf walk asks a dialect what a loop walks only when the dialect overrides loop_source (analysis/health/complexity/perf_walk.py:539), caches one answer per loop (:554-558), and combines the enclosing loops with combined_magnitude (:575, perf/loop_facts.py:105). BasePerfDialect.loop_source returns None (perf/dialects/base.py:382), so a Scala loop is always LoopSour
Rate what actually matters after opening a pull request here.
Rate your first-hand PR experience (review speed, maintainer responsiveness, and onboarding ease) to help other contributors.
When evaluating whether to contribute to repowise-dev/repowise, response velocity and maintainer engagement are crucial. GetMerged continuously tracks pull request trajectories, first-comment latency, and code review rounds to help developers avoid submitting pull requests to backlogged repositories.
Currently, maintainers of repowise-dev/repowise acknowledge new external contributions in approximately -. Out of all submitted pull requests from non-core authors in the last 180-day window, 80.3% were successfully merged into the primary branch.
repowise-dev/repowise has a recorded first-timer success rate of 55.0%. Repositories ranked Elite typically provide actionable feedback during code reviews and actively nurture new community contributors.
The initial maintainer response time averages ~-. Keeping PRs scoped to single concerns and ensuring CI checks succeed will optimize review turnaround.
The C-Rank™ index scores repositories on a 0 to 100 scale using an objective formula: external PR merge rates, initial response speed, active maintainer count, and first-time contributor retention. A score of 74.0 places repowise-dev/repowise in the Elite tier.
The external pull request merge rate is 80.3%. GetMerged isolates non-core community contributions so external developers get an accurate benchmark of PR acceptance probability.
Yes, repowise-dev/repowise currently has 101 active issue(s) tagged with beginner-friendly labels. You can inspect these directly from the repository issues tab.
All metrics displayed for repowise-dev/repowise are automatically retrieved via the public GitHub API and recalculated daily. Insider pull requests submitted by repository owners or organization members are excluded from merge rate calculations to preserve objective external contributor statistics.